ALBANY — You think New York state's government is bloated? Take a good look at the blueprint.

The state constitution has over the years grown into a 56,326-word behemoth that its critics say needlessly governs the most obscure minutiae of New Yorkers' lives.

There are passages about bonuses for World War II veterans. Clauses that govern how public debt shall be used to eliminate railroad crossings. And when tiny communities in the Adirondacks want to improve their water systems or electric grids, they have to get a constitutional amendment passed.

Some blame the constitution's approximately 15,000-word section on the judiciary for fomenting the state's turgid and user-unfriendly court system.

"We have the most Byzantine and archaic and complicated court system, certainly in the country," said Dan Feldman, a lawyer, political science professor and former assemblyman.

Some of that, Feldman said, could be repaired through a constitutional convention in which New Yorkers could choose to streamline the judiciary.

Feldman and others participated in a discussion Thursday at the Rockefeller Institute about the constitution, from how to improve it to the prospects for a convention — that could, if voters say so, take place as early as ... 2017.

The state's foundational document "is not doing what it should do," said Christopher Bopst, a constitutional lawyer.

"No detail is too minor for inclusion," he added, noting that other states function just fine with far smaller and less detailed documents.

One example: A passage that lays out the state's authority to inspect its own prisons. "Nobody disputes that the state has the right to inspect prisons," Bopst said.

One of the results of this plus-sized constitution: New Yorkers end up voting on constitutional amendments, or minor changes which far fall short of a convention, to accomplish the most prosaic goals.

Amendments to the constitution's "Forever Wild" rule regarding the Adirondack Forest Preserve provide an example. Due to stringent bans on building in wilderness areas, voters in 2007 had to pass an amendment allowing the tiny community of Raquette Lake to swap land so it could use 2 acres of wilderness for municipal water wells.

Earlier amendments were needed so Keene Valley could expand its cemetery, and to allow Tupper Lake to get power line improvements.

Why not simply have a clause that allows minor swaps or changes in the law as needed, participants asked.

Of course, much of what is in the constitution stems from the public's deep distrust of politicians, be they members of the Legislature or governors.

Time and experience has shown that the political class doesn't always do the right thing. Rules were put in place decades ago to help prevent lawmakers from making bad or corrupt investments, for example.

Even the need for Adirondack amendments can be traced to New Yorkers' historic distrust of its elected leaders, noted John Sheehan, spokesman for the Adirondack Council.

He noted the Adirondack Forest Preserve was created in the 1880s but wasn't declared Forever Wild until an 1894 constitutional convention, after it became apparent powerful interests such as lumber companies were continuing to denude the land with the assent of the Legislature.

Sheehan added that his organization has supported the amendments allowing the water wells, power lines and cemetery growth.

Amendments to the constitution, which must be passed by two successive legislatures and then by the public, are not unusual. Most observers expect that an amendment allowing expanded casino gambling will be approved by lawmakers next year and then put up to a public vote.

But a full-scale convention in which the public can try to make larger changes to the constitution is a bigger project.

The public can vote for such a convention every 20 years; the next opportunity will be in 2017.

There hasn't been a convention since 1967, and even then the elected delegates rejected adopting a new constitution.

Plenty of politically powerful forces don't want a convention, for fear it could upset a favorable status quo. Public-sector unions, for example, worry that a convention could threaten constitutional guarantees against diminishing public pensions, said Bruce Gyory, a political consultant and adjunct professor at the University at Albany.

Environmentalists fear a convention could roll back gains, and the education lobby worries that it could dilute their funding. One of the changes proposed in 1967, for example, could have allowed public funding for parochial schools — but it didn't pass.

Still, there are voices in favor of a convention. Assembly Republican Minority Leader Brian Kolb has been calling for one for a while, and he noted that Gov. Andrew Cuomo in his campaign literature said he favored a convention.

"Let's push that," Kolb said.

The governor "can build expectations by getting behind it," added Gerald Benjamin, a noted constitutional expert and director of the Center for Research, Regional Engagement and Outreach at SUNY New Paltz, one of the sponsors of Thursday's event.